페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

suasion, but as a means of thwarting the will of the majority, it perverts fundamental concepts of due deliberation. The Senate, traditionally, 'has not employed the technique of moving the previous question (whether, in fact, it could, is another question, beyond the purview of this statement). Instead, it prefers to debate an issue until all Senators have had their say and are content to proceed to action, that is, to vote. Nevertheless, there must be an effective means of stopping debate when discussion becomes a weapon in the hands of the few to forestall all further legislative action until the pending question is recommitted or otherwise dropped.

I feel that present rule XXII does not give fair opportunity to the majority to bring debate to a close. Paragraph (3), subsection (2) of rule XXII should be amended so that an absolute majority of the membership may close debate. This would be a considerably more restrictive requirement than under the previous-question technique of the House, wherein a majority of a quorum may move the question. That is, if 218 Members of the House are present (a quorum), 110 of them could vote the previous question--this out of a total membership of 435. Under the proposal which I recommend, it would take 49 Senators out of 96 to close debate, an absolute majority.

I further suggest that subsection (3) be amended to provide that on proposals involving changes in the Senate rules, a two-thirds vote of the chosen membership, or 64 Senators out of 96, is needed to close debate. The present requirement goes beyond any rational respect for caution and conservative philosophy.

JUNE 14, 1957. Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The Fort Worth Chapter of Pro America is deeply concerned with the attempt of the special subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to amend rule XXII so as to limit debate. Pro America represents 300 local women who are unanimously agreed that this new amendment not only is unconstitutional because it interferes with freedom of speech, but it also destroys the only avenue by which a minority group can express itself.

Not having a list of those on this subcommittee, I address you with the hope that you will acquaint the other members of our feeling about this amendment. Sincerely,

Mrs. R. R. LOWDON, Secretary, Fort Worth Chapter of Pro America,

[ocr errors]

MONTCLAIR, N. J., July 12, 1957. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: As the new president of New Jersey Pro-America, I have received various letters, and communications from the outgoing president, Mrs. Horace A. Woodward. Your letter regarding the hearings on the proposed amendments to rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate was among them.

We are fully in accord with the sentiments expressed by our national president, Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Snow, at one of the hearings. She has spoken for ProAmerica chapters throughout the country.

Thank you for the good work which you are doing for all of us who believe in the basic freedoms under our constitutional system. It is my hope that free debate, and the rights of the States may be preserved. But unless Congress reasserts its rights and fulfills its obligations, I fail to see how that can be done so long as we have on the highest Court in the land, men who are determined to rewrite our laws and change our form of government. With best wishes to you, I am, Sincerely,

ENID H. GRISWOLD. ROANOKE COLLEGE,

Salem, Va., May 22, 1957.
Senator HERMAN TALMADGE,

Washington, D. 0.
DEAR SENATOR: I wish to commend you as chairman of the subcommittee in
the Rules Committee which will consider the changes proposed to Rule 22.
The unlimited debate provisions in the Senate rules is the most important

93635-57—423

provision in all the procedures of the Senate. As long as there is provision for unlimited debate in the Senate there is no chance for revolution or suppression of ideas in America.

If a disillusioned group of Americans can find one Senator who will champion their views, nothing can be rushed or covered up. That was demonstrated in the Dr. Townsend proposals in old-age pensions some years ago. And none or only one proposal on which there was a so-called filibuster has ever later passed into law.

I have taught political science here for over 30 years, and have watched this matter of the Senate debate with real interest. Usually when men rush something they have something they wish to coverup. As Gamaliel said in the case of Jesus, if he is the Messiah he will succeed, if he is not he will go the way of all the other imposters. So let him have his time. Respectfully,

JULIUS F. PRUFER, Associate Professor of Political Science and Alumni Director.

REALPOLITICAL INSTITUTE,

Chicago, Ill., June 18, 1957. Date: June 17, 1957. From: Staff. To: Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate. Re: Proposed change of Senate Rule XXII to limit debate. Subject: Second statement of staff on this change.

DEAR SIR: The staff of the Realpolitical Institute unanimously declares the proposal to limit debate in the Senate of the United States as against the grain of the development of this great Republic. The Communist conspiracy has proved that we need, not less, but more, freedom of debate in the United States Senate.

The rights of our American citizens were won on the battlefield by men who shed their blood for freedom. Some of you sitting in this room today are descendants of those freedom fighters. Are you willing to abrogate those rights, to betray your ancestors without a thought for what you are surrendering?

It is commonplace that it always is the liberal wing which is conspiring to reduce the freedoms won by the suffering of our forefathers. No less an authority than Leon Trotsky wrote, in his History of the Russian Revolution that liberal principles cannot be enforced without the police power.

As another step toward the police state in America, the proposal is made to limit debate. This is subversion at its camouflaged best. Nations are destroyed when their freedoms are chipped away one by one, until one day they wake up and see the Communist soldier standing on guard outside the window of their homes.

The reason for the proposal to limit debate is a simple one. The liberals feel that "reactionaries,” that is, Americans who respect the freedoms of their constituents, are taking up too much time on the floor of the Senate to talk about the rights of free Americans. They want to limit this time so that the liberals will have more time to talk about lending money to the Communist nations of Poland, Yugoslavia, and Hungary, more time to plead for the recognition of Red China, more time to gloss over the sufferings of American prisoners in Red Chinese concentration camps. The Realpolitical Institute stands firmly against the proposal to limit debate.

EUSTICE MULLINS, Director.

PASADENA, CALIF., July 12, 1957. Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.O. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: Please excuse this belated answer to your general letter of May 10, 1957, where you addressed me as director of the Church League of America at its headquarters in Evanston, Ill., asking for an expression concerning the limitation of debate in the Senate, rule XXII.

While head of the church league (a tax-exempt organization) I was careful about expressing opinions as to legislation which might be construed as lobbying. But now I have retired and am free from such restraint.

I believe that what is known as the filibuster (or rights of filibuster) is a good thing and should be used more than it is for I believe that we could do with a lot less legislation. If more bills were talked to death it might be a good thing for the country.

But the important point is that it gives a certain protection to certain sections of the country whose problems are not understood by other sections and who otherwise would become the victims of ruthless pressure from heavily concentrated political blocs such as that concentrated in cities, particularly New York City.

Consequently I am in favor of the Senate retaining its traditional privilege of extended debate on issues that have organic substance sufficient to arouse such debate. Truly yours,

GEORGE ROBNETT.

RESOLUTION Whereas Senate rule XXII has been in effect in the United States Senate since the birth of this Nation, and said rule permits unlimited debate, which is a fundamental safeguard against too hastily considered legislation; and

Whereas that particular organization, more popularly known as the Sons of the American Revolution, is, in all probability, one of the most, if not the most, patriotic organization in the United States, that said organization was founded and exists totally and completely as a result of the unquestionable loyalty and patriotism of the forefathers of the individual members of Sons of the American Revolution, to the United States of America, and

Whereas the Sons of the American Revolution are indeed proud and honored to play an active role in any undertaking whatsoever necessary to preserve the freedom, liberties, privileges, immunities, and individual rights which their forefathers so valiantly fought and died for; and

Whereas it has become all too obvious that the individuals, or groups of individuals, who have enjoyed these rights and freedoms most, have done the least to preserve them or the democratic form of government which our forefathers so stanchly supported on the field of battle in the years 1775–81; and

Whereas instead of preserving those inalienable rights of individuals, and those rights guaranteed to the several States of these United States by the Constitution of this Nation, certain individuals and minority groups of individuals, motivated by selfish desires such as political and monetary gain, have little by little caused the abolition of these rights and have dictated their own selfish and inconsiderate creeds as so-called laws for this Nation to be governed by; and

Whereas it is all too apparent, and appalling, that the education of these minority groups and individuals, concerning the history of the greatest Nation on earth, the United States of America, has been sadly neglected, and further that these people have no interest whatsoever in the future domestic tranquillity of our Nation: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Tallahassee, Fla., Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution, That Senate rule XXII, which said rule embraces the filibuster privilege on the floor of the United States Senate, be retained in its exact present form, and that no changes whatsoever be made concerning said rule, and that the secretary of said Tallahassee Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution is hereby directed to transmit forthwith a true copy of this resolution to each of the following congressional representatives : Senator Herman E. Talmadge

Senator George A. Smathers Senator Richard B. Russell

Representative Robert L. F. Sikes Senator Spessard L. Holland

DAVID A. AVANT, Jr., President. Attested by:

LESTER PATTERSON, Secretary-Treasurer. TALLAHASSEE, FLA., June 28, 1957.

BANNER COUNCIL, No. 67,
SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF LIBERTY,

Inwood, Long Island, June 25, 1957. Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE,

United States Senate, Washington, D.O. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: We as an American organization are against the bills pending in the Senate to change Senate rule XXII relating to limitation

provision in all the procedures of the Senate. As long as there is provision for unlimited debate in the Senate there is no chance for revolution or suppression of ideas in America.

If a disillusioned group of Americans can find one Senator who will champion their views, nothing can be rushed or covered up. That was demonstrated in the Dr. Townsend proposals in old-age pensions some years ago. And none or only one proposal on which there was a so-called filibuster has ever later passed into law.

I have taught political science here for over 30 years, and have watched this matter of the Senate debate with real interest. Usually when men rush something they have something they wish to coverup. As Gamaliel said in the case of Jesus, if he is the Messiah he will succeed, if he is not he will go the way of all the other imposters. So let him have his time. Respectfully,

JULIUS F. PRUFER, Associate Professor of Political Science and Alumni Director.

REALPOLITICAL INSTITUTE,

Chicago, Ill., June 18, 1957.
Date: June 17, 1957.
From: Staff.
To: Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate.
Re: Proposed change of Senate Rule XXII to limit debate.
Subject: Second statement of staff on this change.

DEAR SIR: The staff of the Realpolitical Institute unanimously declares the proposal to limit debate in the Senate of the United States as against the grain of the development of this great Republic. The Communist conspiracy has proved that we need, not less, but more, freedom of debate in the United States Senate.

The rights of our American citizens were won on the battlefield by men who shed their blood for freedom. Some of you sitting in this room today are descendants of those freedom fighters. Are you willing to abrogate those rights, to betray your ancestors without a thought for what you are si Hering?

It is commonplace that it always is the liberal wing wh! spiring to reduce the freedoms won by the suffering of our forefatho

an auth ity than Leon Trotsky wrote, in his History of the

lution liberal principles cannot be enforced without the po?

As another step toward the police state in A
limit debate. This is subversion at its camouf
when their freedoms are chipped away one by
see the Communist soldier standing on gue

The reason for the proposal to limit
that "reactionaries,” that is, America
stituents, are taking up too much ti
the rights of free Americans. The
will have more time to talk abon
Poland, Yugoslavia, and Hung
Red China, more time to gloss
Chinese concentration camps

ust the proposal to limit debat

ctor.

[graphic]

City.

debate

Truly yours,

of the country whose problems are not understood by other sections and who trated political blocs such as that concentrated in cities, particularly New York otherwise would become the victims of ruthless pressure from heavily nooit extended debate on issues that have organic substance sufficient to a roNo nich

Consequently I am in favor of the Senate retaining its traditional privilege of

Whereas Senate rule XXII has been in effect in the United States Hennie is a fundamental safeguard against too hastily considered legislation and

Whereas that particular organization, more popularly known as the Sons of patriotic organization in the United States, that said organization was founded the American Revolution, is, in all probability, one of the most, if not the most, Revolution, to the United States of America; and

an active role in any undertaking whatsoever necessary to preserve the freedom, liberties, privileges, immunities, and individual rights which their

Is, who have enjoyed these rights and freedoms most, have done the luna Where instead of preserving those inalienable rights of individuals, and

shts guaranteed to the several States of these Cnited States by the

But the important point is that it gives a certain protection to certain mersiana

CHRONON MORALIT RESOLUTION

fought and died for vidu to pr

supported on the field of battle in the years 1776 81; and

[graphic]

patriotism of the forefathers ete the individual members of Sons of the America

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

his Nation, certain individuals and minority groups of imividual, selfish such as political and monetary gain, have little boy the al

these rights and have ditates that uw web erate

o-called laws for this Nation to a ivern by; it is

parent, and appalling, that the winnt of thek uals, concerning the history of the great Noi

Ameriea, has been ally neglern, wiertkul reat whatsoever in the future detta inneby ore, be it hassee, Fl. Chapter of the time of the Amer wmn item le XXII, which said rule w.twike these twin T.AY* aited States Senate, la manila 108 x 41, ezkut Inu whatsoever be made **

The

Ad hade det hele allahasseeres of these ant sx Auris kava visto to trans

bith a rude or feat. 2 w ngressos

Sensor & ****AKTI
Best ****;** Rruar 183

Iber & Abr Mind

« 이전계속 »